shift of population from central cities to surrounding areas, with the population of these areas increasing by 30 percent and central cities growing by about 5 percent. The fact that population outside standard metropolitan areas increased by only 3 percent during the same period further sharpens the pronounced national trend toward urbanization.

Within these movements, there has been a mounting shift of our colored population into the core of our cities. The result is that Negro and other minority-group families are fast becoming the large, if not predominant, proportion of our central city population. Social scientists are increasingly warning of the dangers of residential stratification along ethnic or economic groups. These dangers obviously lay a direct, heavy impact on minorities involved. When stratification occurs, it limits housing opportunities. It fences people in. We are also coming to realize it limits the total community's growth and welfare. We are beginning to see that isolation at the neighborhood level is no less dangerous than isolation at the international level.

At the same time that nonwhites and other minorities are becoming a larger element of our city population, our nation is undertaking a vast urban renewal program to renew and revitalize its central cities. Our cities must be revitalized, but here we have a complex and serious problem. It is compounded because Negro and other minority families, by and large, are confined and concentrated in the very worn-out residential areas most in need of renewal and not as free as others to move into new neighborhoods and other housing. These areas usually require some demolition of housing or near total clearance. In the typical local urban renewal program, for example, racial minorities nearly always constitute from one-third to one-half of the families to be displaced. To carry out any relocation plan we know it requires increasing the amount of housing available to minorities. We know it means improving the quality of housing occupied by minorities. We know it means making housing available to minorities.

Whether related to urban renewal or to our more general national housing objective, all informed persons in this field seem to agree that increasing and improving the nation's housing supply is of foremost importance in moving ahead in this field. Although we will not have data to document more fully our national progress in housing until we have the 1960 census, the national housing inventory taken by the Census Bureau in late 1956 shows during the first 7 years of the decade a net of over 9 million dwelling units were added to house approximately 6 million additional households. During this same period, the vacancy rate of good units available for rent or sale advanced from 1.6 to 2.5 percent of the entire inventory-thus enabling American families to spread out a bit and have more choice. This inventory also

shows a very measurable upgrading of housing that was part of the 1950 inventory and still used as dwellings in 1956. Seventy-six percent of our housing inventory in 1956 compared to 65 percent in 1950 was in standard condition. Twenty-four percent was classified in 1956 as dilapidated or lacking in one or more basic plumbing facilities, compared to 35 percent in 1950. The 1956 inventory does not provide extensive racial breakdowns.

Of course, this advancement in our national housing picture is encouraging. Even more important, however, it shows us the job yet ahead, and no room left for complacency. We know we must make faster and much greater progress in overcoming blight. We're told to expect a sharp upswing in family formation in the 1960's, and this means housing to serve these new families. In addition, we would all agree that in a nation like ours we still have important and urgent work to do when 24 percent of our housing inventory is still classified as dilapidated or with plumbing deficiencies.

The 1950 housing census-which is the latest data we have with extensive racial breakdowns-documented many special difficulties experienced by Negroes and other racial minorities in acquiring standard housing. It showed, for instance, that 30.7 percent of nonfarm homes occupied by nonwhites was dilapidated compared to 5.7 percent for whites. Overcrowding was four times as great. Minorities were generally able to buy less housing value and secure less home financing service on poorer terms per dollar than whites. These and other disturbing differentials stress the importance of expanding and improving housing and home finance available to minorities. When more ample data becomes available in the 1960 housing census, we will analyze it very carefully. We expect to make the results of our study available to public officials, industry leaders, and public-interest groups so that all can join in moving ahead.

In carrying out our program, we must always be reviewing, analyzing, and studying our operations and how they are serving this segment of the market. We must always look for new and more effective approaches. This must be a continuous process. Advances are usually made in several stages with their effectiveness depending on the wisdom and soundness in hammering out and implementing each step.

Let me now tell you some ways I have been thinking about problems in this field during my first 5 months as Administrator. This kind of thinking is not entirely new to me. My first baptism was as FHA Commissioner. Here my concern, of course, was in action to assure that all Americans shared equally in the benefits of Federal mortgageinsurance programs, irrespective of their race, color, or creed. My job as Administrator extends to a much broader orbit. I must now take responsibility and give leadership in assuring that all HHFA pro

grams are administered so that there is unhampered participation in their benefits, regardless of racial and ethnic identity.

It gives me hope in undertaking my new functions as Administrator to recall the effectiveness that we were able to exhibit in FHA in our joint efforts with the building industry in their production program to serve minorities-with the mortgage bankers in their study and findings to overcome mortgage finance impediments faced by Negroes— and perhaps, most of all, to remember the 41 or more open occupancy projects insured by FHA that demonstrated what can be done by the fine teamwork of industry, local community groups and officials, and the FHA.

I am convinced that the broad relationships involved in carrying out our varied housing programs, not only across the country with local and State public officials, but also with the private building and lending industries and with public-interest organizations, gives the Federal agency a fine opportunity to lead. The effective joint efforts of all these forces are required to move ahead further and faster. The Federal Government, however, has inherent basic responsibilities in administering its programs equally to its citizens. It also has at hand an inventory of national experience that belongs to the people and must be made available as a significant tool for moving forward in this field. There are many ways to lead-by cooperating, by encouraging, by stimulating. It is sometimes necessary to prod, but whatever the method, it is my view, we must lead. I must have help in developing specific actions to give this leadership scope and effectiveness.

This

I am now engaged in plans to bring together in the Office of the Administrator a leadership nucleus of informed intergrouprelations specialists drawn from various racial backgrounds. These must be people knowledgable with respect to housing programs and the many complex intergroup adjustments involved in this field. The directing head of this group will report directly to me. I expect to look to this staff nucleus for specialized advice and assistance. I will extend their usefulness where needed throughout the Agency. staff must be of recognized stature and competence with understanding of developments within the Federal Agency and outside. I will expect them to recommend, for my consideration, specific programs and steps for continuously increasing the effectiveness of Federal programs in serving this market. My hope is that they can operate on a rather flexible basis. Assignment of an intergroup-relations specialist to a specific operation can often help "key in" a significant program phase to our overall efforts.

In addition to this staff nucleus, it is my conviction that one of our most needed steps is to bring successfully into our efforts sympathetic

understanding and the affirmative participation of the entire personnel throughout the housing agencies-for the Agency responsibility on this front can be fully discharged only to the degree that every employee discharges his full measure of the responsibility.

I am convinced that urban renewal offers real potential for moving ahead. Earlier, I commented on the extent to which minorities were migrating into our central cities in search of better cultural and employment opportunities, and how they were occupying the areas most in need of renewal. Urban renewal must result in adding to the living space available to the people being displaced.

An important relocation tool is FHA's section 221 program. This program provides low-cost housing to displaced families with a minimum downpayment of $200 including closing costs. There have been comments that a relatively low proportion of the housing units insured under section 221 are actually being occupied by eligible displacees, especially minorities. To find out whether or not this is true or whether the program might be serving well by simply adding to the housing supply, I am having Mr. Albert Thompson, of FHA's intergroup-relations staff, do a full review to find out in addition to these questions how much 221 housing is being produced-whether or not it is available to minority groups-whether or not it is being produced in proper locations-and whether or not buyers and renters find it adequate for living as American citizens expect. Mr. Thompson has now completed careful groundwork for the study and questionnaires are on the way out to OA Regional and FHA field offices. To round out the full picture as to how this program is operating at the local level, field visits are planned to select localities, with 23 cities spread geographically throughout the country now on the list. Mr. Thompson is presently in the field on his first visits seeking information concerning community attitudes from local public officials, private enterprise, and public-interest groups. We feel this comprehensive study will provide essential clues for strengthening the 221 operation. This action obviously is significant to displaced minorities.

Another important program I'm currently looking at very hard is the workable program. I am convinced it has highly significant untapped possibilities in serving this field. Under the 1954 Housing Act, communities are required to develop workable programs as a condition to receiving certain Federal aids. They must be certified by the Administrator and renewed each year. This statutory device is an "umbrella" of local aims and action-planning, city administrative tools, code enforcement, neighborhood analysis, rehousing, and citizen participation.

513401 0-59

Under the workable program's comprehensive planning requirement, a community looks at all its problems, where it is and where it wishes to go, in undertaking revitalization. It begins to plan for all its citizens in terms of total community structure. Planning for all citizens results in benefiting all citizens, because from the beginning nobody is left out. The breadth of such planning can be a real power in loosening and expanding housing opportunities for minorities.

A community can't plan wisely without facts. Sound neighborhood analyses, another part of the workable program, gives basic facts about the people, their houses, and neighborhoods. Facts are the essential forerunner of all sound action, but, even more important, its people begin to realize the community cares about their living conditions and the whole citizenry learns about "both sides of the railroad track."

Planning and analysis is followed by code enforcement to upgrade some bad apples in the barrel so there won't be others and also help to keep good neighborhoods from deteriorating. It's another very important tool.

Now we come to the rehousing part of the workable program. Here answers must be found, answers as to how much new housing is needed, how to get it, where it is to be located, and who is going to occupy it, how much housing can be improved, and how much must be demolished.

The last, and one on which the effectiveness of all others depends, is citizen participation. No locality can revitalize itself without the full participation of all its citizens. This is especially true for minorities throughout the community and for the people being displaced. It is absolutely essential to undertake all these actions with the people.

Now it is these potentials in the workable program that convince me that much deeper meaning must be breathed into this operation. I have in mind our exercising more aggressive leadership to accomplish workable program objectives. We recently prodded New York City on their workable program and we are beginning to feel there will be some good results.

Still another part of my current thinking relates to further strengthening our Federal-State-local cooperation. A significant trend has been taking place on the State and local legislative fronts seeking to provide equal housing opportunity to all. Fourteen States have enacted statutes prohibiting racial discrimination or segregation in housing that is either publicly owned, or publicly assisted or located in urban renewal project areas. Seven of these State statutes cover both publicly owned housing and publicly assisted private housing.